ORDER : The petitioner, who is a third party to W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018, has filed this review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after obtaining leave of this Court, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 05.08.2019 in that writ petition. The said writ petition was one filed by the 5th respondent herein, who is a resident of Uduma Grama Panchayat, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary, Uduma Grama Panchayat; the Chief Engineer, Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP); and the District Collector, Kasaragod, respondents 2 to 4 herein, to remove the existing bus waiting shed situated inside the road margin of Kanhangad - Kasaragod KSTP Road at Uduma Junction, more particularly identified in Ext.P1 photographs. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer to construct median/divider on the road so as to reduce traffic accidents at Uduma town and junction, as per the approval already granted. 2. On 30.11.2018, when W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018 came up for admission, this court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and this Court issued notice to the 2nd respondent by speed post. 3. In the writ petition, the 2nd respondent Secretary of Uduma Grama Panchayat has filed counter affidavit, pointing out that, vide Ext.P4 resolution No.6/2018 dated 11.10.2018, the Panchayat Committee decided to request the 4th respondent District Collector to take necessary steps to remove the bus shelter at Uduma Junction, in front of the railway gate, which is causing obstruction to the development of KSTP Road at Uduma Town. Based on Ext.P4, the District Road Safety Council, Kasaragode, vide Ext.R2(a) resolution dated 16.11.2018, authorised KSTP to take necessary steps to remove the bus shelter at Uduma Junction, on the western side of the railway gate. As evident from Ext.P1 photographs, the bus shelter in question is protruding into the tarred portion of KSTP Road earmarked as bus bay, posing danger to pedestrians and also to motorists. A few meters away from the said bus shelter there are two bus shelters constructed by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay. 4. A few meters away from the said bus shelter there are two bus shelters constructed by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay. 4. On 05.08.2019, when W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018 came up for consideration, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.R2(a) decision taken by the District Road Safety Council (item No.12) to remove the bus shelter at Uduma Junction, on the western side of the railway gate, shall be implemented forthwith by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer and the 4th respondent District Collector. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of recording the above submission made by the learned Government Pleader. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court by the judgment dated 05.08.2019 disposed of W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018 by directing the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer and the 4th respondent District Collector to take necessary steps in furtherance of Ext.R2(a) decision of the District Road Safety council (item No.12), within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. 5. On 25.09.2019, the petitioner, who is a resident of Uduma Grama Panchayat, filed this review petition along with I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking leave, by contending that the bus shelter at Uduma Junction, on the western side of the railway gate, falls outside the four-lane limit of KSTP Road. On 17.10.2019, when I.A.No.1 of 2019 came up for consideration, this Court granted leave and Registry was directed to number the review petition and list it for admission on 23.10.2019, along with Cont.Case(C) No.2007 of 2019 filed by the 5th respondent/writ petitioner on 04.10.2019, alleging non-compliance of the direction contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed. 6. On 31.10.2019, the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer has filed a counter affidavit in the review petition. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit read thus; “5. It is submitted that the road at Uduma Junction at present is only four-lane having a total width of 7 Mts. on the one side and having 14 Mts. on both sides. The disputed bus shelter is outside the road carriage way, i.e., outside the 7 Mts. It is 1.50 Mts. from the two-lane carriageway. But at that place, the bus bay having a width of 3 Mts. on the one side and having 14 Mts. on both sides. The disputed bus shelter is outside the road carriage way, i.e., outside the 7 Mts. It is 1.50 Mts. from the two-lane carriageway. But at that place, the bus bay having a width of 3 Mts. was constructed by KSTP, which starts 35 Mts. before reaching the disputed bus shelter from Kanjangad side. The disputed bus shelter is jetting into the bus bay to the extent of 1.50Mts. All other dimensions are shown in the sketch plan. 6. Though the disputed bus shelter is not jetting into the tarred portion of the road, it is actually jetting into the tarred portion of the bus bay. The disputed bus shelter though not a hindrance to the free flow of traffic through the road, it is a hindrance to the bus which enters the bus bay. It is also submitted that two bus shelters newly constructed by KSTP are beyond the bus bay." 7. On 3.12.2019, the 5th respondent/writ petitioner has filed counter affidavit. On 10.02.2010, the petitioner has filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent and also that filed by the 5th respondent/writ petitioner. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned State Attorney for respondents 1, 3 and 4, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and also the learned counsel for the 5th respondent/writ petitioner. 9. The petitioner, who is a resident of Uduma Grama Panchayat, has filed this review petition, along with I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking leave, by contending that the bus shelter at Uduma Junction, on the western side of the railway gate, falls outside the four-lane limit of KSTP Road. In support of the said contention, the petitioner placed reliance on Annexure I communication dated 08.01.2019 of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kerala State Transport Project Division, Kannur. In Annexure I it is stated that Uduma township extends from Ch.8+700 to 9+000km along the route of KSTP Road. As per the original contract drawing the said stretch of the road was envisaged as two-lane carriageway of 10m overall width. Due to the presence of a railway crossing in the approach road at 8+850km, tailgating of vehicles from the level crossing extends to the project road during periodic closure of the railway gate during busy hours. As per the original contract drawing the said stretch of the road was envisaged as two-lane carriageway of 10m overall width. Due to the presence of a railway crossing in the approach road at 8+850km, tailgating of vehicles from the level crossing extends to the project road during periodic closure of the railway gate during busy hours. Hence, in order to ease traffic flow, KSTP took up and completed four-lining of the project road at Uduma Junction with a central median. As clarified by the Supervision Consultant, the disputed bus shelter falls outside the four-lane limit and the said bus shelter needs to be demolished in case of further expansion plan (six-lane), which is not included in the current purview of the project. In the review petition, the petitioner would contend that the bus shelter is in existence for the last 22 years, which cater the needs of the public at large. The decision to remove the bus shelter on the ground that it causes hindrance to the traffic, was taken on extraneous considerations. 10. On 23.10.2019, when this review petition came up for admission, it was ordered that a sketch prepared by a competent officer of KSTP showing the lie of the State Highway at Uduma Junction, with specific reference to the width of the tarred portion, road margin, footpath, etc. and the location of the bus shelters is placed on record by 01.11.2019. 11. On 31.10.2019, the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer has filed a counter affidavit in the review petition, producing therewith Ext.R3(a) sketch showing the lie of the road at Uduma Junction, the tarred portion of the road, the disputed bus shelter and also the newly constructed bus shelters by KSTP. As per the averments in the counter affidavit, Kanhangad-Kasaragod KSTP Road at Uduma junction is a four-lane road having a total width of 14m on both sides (7m+7m). The disputed bus shelter is outside the carriageway of the road. The bus shelter protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. The disputed bus shelter, though not a hindrance to free flow of traffic through the road, causes hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. The disputed bus shelter is outside the carriageway of the road. The bus shelter protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. The disputed bus shelter, though not a hindrance to free flow of traffic through the road, causes hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch, two new bus shelters constructed by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, are at a distance of only 30m from the disputed bus shelter. Ext.R3(a) sketch showing the lie of the road at Uduma Junction, the tarred portion of the road, the disputed bus shelter which protrudes into the bus bay and also the newly constructed bus shelters by KSTP, is reproduced hereinbelow; image 12. On 03.12.2019, the 5th respondent/writ petitioner has filed counter affidavit in the review petition, producing therewith Ext.R5(a) letter dated 25.09.2019 of the learned State Attorney, whereby the 4th respondent District Collector was requested to hold the implementation of the judgment of this Court dated 05.08.2019 in W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018 on the ground that the learned Counsel for the review petitioner has handed over him a copy of the review petition filed on 25.09.2019, with File No.47736/19. Along with the counter affidavit, a copy of the news report that appeared in Desabhimani daily dated 26.09.2019 is placed on record as Ext.R5(b). As per that news report, this Court stayed the judgment to demolish the bus shelter constructed by DYFI at Uduma Town, in a review petition filed by DYFI Uduma Block Committee through the learned Counsel who filed this review petition. As per that news report, the petitioner in this review petition, Sri A.V. Sivaprasad, is DYFI Block Secretary, Uduma. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R5(c) report dated 19.03.2019 of the Village Officer, Uduma addressed to the Tahsildar, Hosdurg is placed on record, as per which, the bus shelter opposite to the railway gate at Uduma Junction is causing traffic congestion. Though KSTP had constructed two new bus shelters, buses including KSRTC buses are stopping in front of the old bus shelter. 13. On 07.01.2020, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent/writ petitioner has made available for the perusal of this Court a photograph of the disputed bus shelter opposite to the railway gate at Uduma Junction. 13. On 07.01.2020, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent/writ petitioner has made available for the perusal of this Court a photograph of the disputed bus shelter opposite to the railway gate at Uduma Junction. The said photograph is reproduced hereinbelow; image As evident from the photograph, the 'hip-roof' of the bus shelter, which slops downwards, is only a few feet away from the edge of the carriageway of the four-lane KSTP Road, which is marked with white line. A stage carriage by name 'Rahi Deluxe' operating on the route Kasaragod - Kanhangad is seen stopped inside the carriageway, in front of the bus shelter, allowing the passengers to board and alight near the edge of the carriageway. [The registration mark on the front of the said stage carriage is not clearly visible, as the said vehicle is fitted with an unauthorised 'crash guard/bull bar', posing serious safety concerns to the pedestrians.] Passengers are seen standing near the edge of the carriageway in front of the bus shelter, in order to board stage carriages. In the order dated 07.01.2020, this Court noticed that the bus shelter in question at Uduma Junction poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians, including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 14. By the order dated 07.01.2020, this Court directed a competent officer of the 1st respondent State to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which the bus shelter in question at Uduma Junction, which protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m, was not demolished after the construction of two new bus shelters by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, at a distance of only 30m from the said bus shelter. In the said order, this Court noticed that, the said bus shelter poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. In the said order, this Court noticed that, the said bus shelter poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. Therefore, it was ordered that, in the affidavit the 1st respondent shall also state the steps taken to ensure strict enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions and also the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by Indian Roads congress [IRC:103-2012] in order to prevent encroachment of any nature, in any form, either temporary or permanent, on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities on public roads, since any such encroachment will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 15. In the order dated 07.01.2020 this Court noticed that, the petitioner has filed this review petition styling himself as a citizen, who is a resident of Uduma Grama panchayat. As discernible from Ext.R5(b) press report, the bus shelter in question at Uduma Junction is one constructed by DYFI Uduma Block Committee and the review petitioner is its Secretary. Despite the fact that this Court has not granted an order of stay in this review petition, Ext.R5(b) news report appeared in the said daily, which says that the judgment of this Court to demolish the bus shelter constructed by DYFI at Uduma Town is stayed in the review petition filed by DYFI Uduma Block Committee. Therefore, the review petitioner was directed to file an affidavit, explaining the facts and circumstances, with specific reference to Ext.R5(a) letter dated 25.09.2019 of the learned State Attorney and Ext.R5(b) press report dated 26.09.2019. By that order, the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer and the 4th respondent District Collector, who are the respondents in Cont.Case(C) No.2007 of 2019, were directed to file affidavit, explaining the facts and circumstances in non-compliance of the direction contained in the judgment dated 05.08.2019 in W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018. 16. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch showing the lie of the road at Uduma Junction, tarred portion of the road, the disputed bus shelter and also the newly constructed bus shelters by KSTP, produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. The said fact is evident from Ext.P1 photographs produced along with W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018 and also Annexure 2, Annexure 2(a) and Annexure 2(b) photographs produced along with the reply affidavit filed by the review petitioner. The bus shelter in question at Uduma Junction poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians, including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. The disputed bus shelter causes hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. The two new bus shelters constructed by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, are at a distance of only 30m from the disputed bus shelter. 17. The Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999 was enacted by the State Legislature to provide for the protection of highways and for the regulation of highway development in the State of Kerala. The preamble of the Act reads as follows; "WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the protection and development of highways and for the prevention of ribbon development along highways and encroachment and use of highways for purposes which will adversely affect the safety of traffic and proper condition of highways in the State of Kerala". 18. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the Kerala Highway Protection Act define 'building line' to mean a line on either side of a highway as may be determined by the competent authority under Section 18. Clause (d) of Section 2 define 'competent authority' to mean any officer of the Government in Public Works Department appointed by Government by notification in the Gazette to be the competent authority for the purposes of the Act. Clause (e) of Section 2 define 'control line' to mean a line beyond the building line as may be determined by the competent authority under Section 18. 19. Clause (e) of Section 2 define 'control line' to mean a line beyond the building line as may be determined by the competent authority under Section 18. 19. Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act define 'encroachment' to mean occupation of a highway or part thereof for purposes other than traffic and any act which causes damage to the highway and includes (i) unauthorised erection of a building or any other permanent or temporary structure, balcony, porches, facades or projections on, over or overhanging the highway; (ii) occupation of highway, for stacking building materials or goods of any other description, for parking automobiles for maintenance and repair, for exhibiting articles for sale, for erecting poles, awnings, tents, pandals, arches, platforms, rostrums, hoardings, display boards, statues, monuments of all kinds, steps, ramps and other similar structures or stabling domestic animals and poultry and cultivation of any kind including horticulture or for any other purpose; (iii) excavation or embankment of any sort made or extended on any highway; (iv) dumping of waste and filthy materials which may cause hygienic and environmental hazards, letting of waste and polluted water or other effluents into the highway and using the highway for bathing, washing, watering and defecating; (v) blocking, closing, choking or restricting water flow along the sides of the highway or across it, either free flow or guided flow through drains, channels, conduits, sewers, cross drainage works such as culverts, weirs, under-tunnels, bridges, or aqueducts; and (vi) blocking or closing of channels, streams or any water course which passes through any property, either private or public, and forming part of a natural water course which may result in accumulation of water on a highway causing damage to road crust. 20. Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act define' highway' to mean any road, way or land declared as a highway under Section 3 and includes any land acquired or demarcated for construction of a highway. Clause (i) of Section 2 define 'highway authority' to mean the highway authority appointed under Section 4. Clause (m) of Section 2 define 'right of way' in relation to a highway means the land within its boundaries. Clause (n) of Section 2 define 'standard width of highway' means the width of a highway as may be specified under Section 17. Clause (i) of Section 2 define 'highway authority' to mean the highway authority appointed under Section 4. Clause (m) of Section 2 define 'right of way' in relation to a highway means the land within its boundaries. Clause (n) of Section 2 define 'standard width of highway' means the width of a highway as may be specified under Section 17. Clause (q) of Section 2 define 'survey mark' to mean any mark or object erected, made, employed or specified by a highway authority to indicate or determine or assist in determining the position or level of any point or points. 21. Section 3 of the Act deals with declaration of roads, ways or land as highway. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3, the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare any road, way or land appurtenant thereto to be a highway and classify it as a State highway or a Hill Highway or a Major District Road or any other category of road. Section 4 of the Act deals with appointment of highway authority. As per Section 4, for the purpose of exercising the powers and performing the duties of a highway authority under the Act for any area or for a highway or part of a highway, the Government shall appoint, by notification, the Executive Engineer (Roads) or Executive Engineer (National Highways) of the Public Works Department as the highway authority of the respective area. Section 5 of the Act deals with powers and functions of highway authority, which includes the powers and functions to control ribbon development; and to prevent and remove encroachment. 22. Section 7 of the Act deals with preparation of scheme for highway development. As per sub-section (1) of Section 7, the highway authority may, of its own accord, or shall, on the written request by the competent authority, prepare a detailed scheme for the construction of a new highway or realignment or improvement of, or repairs to an existing highway or part thereof and submit it to the competent authority for sanction in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 9 of the Act deals with maintenance of highway plans. Section 9 of the Act deals with maintenance of highway plans. As per sub-section (1) of Section 9, the highway authority shall, after having made a survey of each highway and its boundaries, prepare and maintain a plan as approved by the competent authority in respect of such highway. As per sub-section (2), a plan maintained under subsection (1) shall show clearly the boundaries of the highway, the detailed measurements of road widths, the distance between boundary marks and sufficient measurements from fixed points to enable the re-fixation in position of boundary marks in case they have been displaced or tampered with. 23. Section 10 of the Act deals with demarcation of highway boundaries. As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, the highway authority shall have the boundaries of the highways in its charge demarcated with reference to the plans maintained by it under sub-section (1) of Section 9, by planting stones or other suitable marks of a durable nature at intervals all along the highway in such a manner that the imaginary line joining such stones or marks shall show the road boundary correctly. As per sub-section (2), where there are bends or links in the road boundary, the stone or marks shall be so located as to give the correct configuration of the boundary when they are jointed by straight lines. As per sub-section (3), the boundary stones or marks, which may be given consecutive numbers, shall be maintained on the ground as if they constitute part of the highway. Section 11 of the Act deals with annual check of highway boundaries. As per Section 11, it shall be the duty of the highway authority to conduct annual check of the boundaries of the highway in its charge with a view to locate and remove encroachments, if any. 24. Chapter IV of the Act deals with prevention of unauthorised occupation of highway and removal of encroachments. As per Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force all lands forming part of a highway which has not already been vested in the Government shall, for the purpose of this chapter, be deemed to be Government property. Section 13 of the Act deals with prevention of unauthorised occupation of highway. Section 13 of the Act deals with prevention of unauthorised occupation of highway. As per Section 13, no person shall occupy or continue to occupy any highway or part of a highway for purposes other than traffic or do any act which involves any of the activities mentioned in clause (f) of Section 2. 25. Section 14 of the Act deals with power to give direction to take certain measures. As per sub-section (1) of Section 14, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where the highway authority is satisfied that any act which involves any of the activities mentioned in clause (f) of Section 2 or subsection (1) of Section 19 done by any person before the commencement of the Act has caused or is likely to cause accumulation of water in the highway or obstruction to the free flow of any water course or other damage to the highway, the said authority may direct such person in writing to take such measures as may be necessary to remove any obstruction or to provide for free flow of water. As per sub-section (2), any person who has been issued a direction under sub-section (1) shall comply with it within fifteen days from the date of its receipt and such person, if fails to comply with the direction, shall be deemed to have contravened the provisions of Section 13 or Section 19, as the case may be. 26. Section 15 of the Act deals with removal of encroachment. As per sub section (1) of Section 15, where, as a result of the annual check of highway boundaries made under Section 11 or otherwise, the highway authority is satisfied that an encroachment has taken place on the highway under its jurisdiction, it shall serve a notice on the person responsible for the encroachment to remove the encroachment within such time as may be specified in the notice and if the person fails to comply with the notice the highway authority or the officer authorised by it in this behalf shall cause the encroachment to be removed, with the assistance of police, if required. As per sub-section (2), whenever an encroachment is made for the purpose of exposing articles for sale, for opening temporary booth for vending or publicity or for other like purposes, the highway authority shall with the help of police, if necessary, have such encroachment summarily removed. Section 16 of the Act deals with recovery of cost of removal of encroachment. As per Section 16, whenever a highway authority or the officer authorised by it remove any encroachment or carry out any protective work in respect of such encroachment, the actual expenditure incurred for such removal or protective work together with fifteen per cent of such amount as overhead charges, shall be recovered from the person responsible for the encroachment, in the manner as may be prescribed. 27. The Government of India has initiated National Highways Development Programme (NHDP) that relies substantially on Public Private Partnerships as a means of attracting private capital, improving efficiencies and reducing costs. Several states are pursuing similar programmes based on Public Private Partnerships in state highways. For awarding Public Private Partnership projects within a competitive, efficient and economic framework based on international best practices, Government of India has adopted a Model Concession Agreement (MCA) for Public Private Partnerships in National Highways. On similar lines, the Planning Commission has published a Model Concession Agreement for State Highways. These Model Concession Agreements follow the Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) approach that requires the Concessionaire to bear the responsibility for detailed design. However, the accountability for providing safe and reliable roads ultimately rests with the Government and the Model Concession Agreement, therefore, mandates a Manual of Standards and Specifications that the Concessionaire must conform to. It was felt that a Standard Manual of Specifications and Standards should be brought out by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) to ensure uniformity of approach and to facilitate easy implementation by various State Governments. For evolving standards conforming to the Design, Build, Finance and Operate approach, the Planning Commission asked the Indian Roads Congress to develop a Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-lane Highways, which would, by reference, form an integral part of the Model Concession Agreement and would be binding on the Concessionaire. Its provisions would be enforceable and any breach would expose the Concessionaire to penalties, including termination of the concession. 28. Its provisions would be enforceable and any breach would expose the Concessionaire to penalties, including termination of the concession. 28. The Indian Roads Congress was set up in December, 1934 on the recommendations of the Indian Road Development Committee (Jayakar Committee) set up by the Government of India, with the objective of Road Development in India. Indian Roads Congress works in collaboration with Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH, is the Honorary Treasurer of Indian Roads Congress. There are three Apex Committees, which are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, Standards and Guidelines, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee. There are Technical Committees under each Apex Committees. The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH; the President and Secretary General of Indian Roads Congress are Ex-Officio members of all Technical Committees. 29. The Indian Roads Congress has formulated Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, vide IRC:SP:73-2007. The Manual is to be used in relation to Schedule D of the Model Concession Agreement. Besides integrating the Manual into the concession agreement, the said schedule permits deviations from the Manual to address project-specific requirements. The Manual reflects a delicate balance that was arrived at after several rounds of expert and stakeholder deliberations with a view to ensuring development of quality roads and at the same time improving their financial viability by optimising on costs and obligations. 30. As per Para 1.1 of IRC:SP:73-2007, the scope of the work shall be as defined in the concession agreement. Two-laning/two-laning with paved shoulders of the Project Highway shall be undertaken and completed by the Concessionaire as per the Specifications and Standards set forth in this Manual. As per Para 1.2, the Project Highway and the project facilities shall conform to the design requirements set out in this Manual which are the minimum prescribed. The project report and other information provided by the Government shall be used by the Concessionaire only for its own reference and for carrying out further investigations. As per Para 1.2, the Project Highway and the project facilities shall conform to the design requirements set out in this Manual which are the minimum prescribed. The project report and other information provided by the Government shall be used by the Concessionaire only for its own reference and for carrying out further investigations. The Concessionaire shall be solely responsible for undertaking all the necessary surveys, investigations and detailed designs in accordance with the good industry practice and due diligence, and shall have no claim against Government for any loss, damage, risk, costs, liabilities or obligations arising out of or in relation to the project report and other information provided by the Government. 31. As per Para 1.5 of IRC:SP:73-2007, the Codes, Standards and Technical Specifications applicable for the design of project components are: (i) Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Codes and Standards, as per Appendix-2; (ii) Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways; and (iii) any other standards referred to in the Manual and any supplement issued with the bid document. As per Para 1.6, the latest version of the Codes, Standards, Specifications, etc. notified/published at least 60 days before the last date of bid submission shall be considered applicable. As per Para 1.9, in case of any conflict or inconsistency with the provisions of the applicable IRC Codes, Standards or MoRTH Specifications, the provisions contained in this Manual and the Specifications and Standards specified in this Manual shall apply. As per Para 1.10, in the absence of any specific provision on any particular issue in the aforesaid Codes or Specifications read in conjunction with the Specifications and Standards contained in this Manual, the following Standards shall apply in order of priority: (i) Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS); (ii) British Standards, or American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standards, or American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards; (iii) any other specifications/standards proposed by the Concessionaire and reviewed by the Independent Engineer (IE). 32. Para 13.5 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with bus bays and bus shelters. As per Para 13.5.1, the buses shall be allowed to stop for dropping and picking up passengers only at the bus bays. The Government shall indicate in Schedule-C of the Concession Agreement, the number and broad location of bus bays to be provided by the Concessionaire. 32. Para 13.5 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with bus bays and bus shelters. As per Para 13.5.1, the buses shall be allowed to stop for dropping and picking up passengers only at the bus bays. The Government shall indicate in Schedule-C of the Concession Agreement, the number and broad location of bus bays to be provided by the Concessionaire. The bus bays shall conform to the specifications and standards given in this Section. In cases where bus stands are provided by the concerned State Government Transport Authorities, the Concessionaire shall provide only access road within the right of way. As per Para 13.5.2, the location of the bus bays shall be fixed on the basis of following principles: (i) The bus stops shall be sited away from bridges and other important structures and embankment sections more than 3m high. (ii) As far as possible, bus bays shall not be located on horizontal curves or at the summit of vertical curves. (iii) The location shall have good visibility, not less than the safe stopping sight distance. (iv) The bus bays shall not be located too close to the road intersections. A gap of 300m from the tangent point of intersections to start/end of the bus bay shall be desirable. At minor intersections (e.g. junctions with village roads), distance of 60m may be adopted. However, if a substantial volume of buses is to turn right at the intersection, it is necessary that the bus bay shall be located sufficiently ahead of the intersection so that the buses can be maneuvered easily from the pick-up stop on the left hand side to the extreme right lane for turning. The location of the bus bays may be fixed after due consultation with the local communities expected to use such facilities. (v) At major four-way intersections involving transfer of a substantial number of passengers from one pickup stop to the other, it might be desirable to construct a single, composite bus stop of suitable design to cater to all the bus routes collectively. (vi) In hilly areas, the bus bays shall be located, preferably, where the road is straight on both sides, gradients are flat and the visibility is reasonably good (usually not less than 50m). Subject to these requirements, it will be advisable to choose locations where it is possible to widen the roadway economically for accommodating bus bays. 33. (vi) In hilly areas, the bus bays shall be located, preferably, where the road is straight on both sides, gradients are flat and the visibility is reasonably good (usually not less than 50m). Subject to these requirements, it will be advisable to choose locations where it is possible to widen the roadway economically for accommodating bus bays. 33. Para 13.5.3 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with layout and design. As per clause (i), for plain area, typical layouts of bus bays given in Fig.13.2 shall be adopted. The length "L" shown in Fig.13.2 shall be 15m, which shall be increased in multiples of 15m if more than one bus is likely to halt at the bus bay at one time. As per clause (ii), for hilly areas, where there is a general constraint on space, the layout indicated in Fig.13.3 may be adopted. As per clause (iii), bus bays shall be provided on both sides of the Project Highway for each direction of travel independently, so that the buses do not have to cut across the road. Bus bays on opposite sides shall be staggered to a certain extent to avoid undue congestion on the highway. At intersections, the bus bays for up and down direction shall be located on farther sides of the intersection. As per clause (iv), the bus bay shall be provided with a shelter for passengers. The shelter shall be structurally safe and aesthetic in appearance, while also being functional so as to protect the waiting passengers adequately from sun, wind and rain. If the shelter is constructed on the hillside, slopes shall be properly dressed and suitably protected to avoid slips. The shelter shall be set back from the kerb line by at least 500mm. 34. Para 13.5.4 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with pavement. As per Para 13.5.4, the pavement in the bus bays shall have adequate crust with respect to the wheel loads expected. Also, the surfacing shall be strong enough to withstand forces due to frequent braking and acceleration by the buses. The colour and texture of the bus bay surfacing shall be preferably distinctive from that of the main carriageway. Para 13.5.6 deals with road markings. As per Para 13.5.6, pavement markings with thermoplastic paint having glass beads shall be provided at the bus stops as shown in Figs.13.2 and 13.3 with the word 'BUS' written prominently on the pavement. The colour and texture of the bus bay surfacing shall be preferably distinctive from that of the main carriageway. Para 13.5.6 deals with road markings. As per Para 13.5.6, pavement markings with thermoplastic paint having glass beads shall be provided at the bus stops as shown in Figs.13.2 and 13.3 with the word 'BUS' written prominently on the pavement. Pedestrian crossings shall be marked slightly behind the standing position of the buses in order to reduce pedestrian conflicts. The kerbs shall be marked with continuous yellow line to indicate "No Parking". 35. The Indian Roads Congress has also formulated Manual of Specifications and Standards for Four-laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, vide IRC:SP:84-2009. Para 12.5 of IRC:SP:84-2009 deals with bus bays and passenger shelters. Para 12.5.2 deals with location. As per Para 12.5.2, the location of the bus bays shall be fixed on the basis of following principles: (i) The bus stops shall be sited away from bridges and other important structures and embankment sections more than 3m high. (ii) As far as possible, bus bays shall not be located on horizontal curves or at the summit of vertical curves. (iii) The location shall have good visibility, not less than the safe stopping sight distance. (iv) The bus bays shall not be located too close to the road intersections. A gap of 300m from the tangent point of intersections to start/end of the bus bay shall be desirable. At minor intersections (e.g. junctions with village roads), distance of 60m may be adopted. However, if a substantial volume of buses is to turn right at the intersection, it is necessary that the bus bay shall be located sufficiently ahead of the intersection so that the buses can be manoeuvered easily from the pickup stop on the left hand side to the extreme right lane for turning. The location of the bus bays may be fixed after due consultation with the local communities expected to use such facilities. (v) At major four-way intersections involving transfer of a substantial number of passengers from one pick-up stop to the other, it might be desirable to construct a single, composite bus stop of suitable design to cater to all the bus routes collectively. (v) At major four-way intersections involving transfer of a substantial number of passengers from one pick-up stop to the other, it might be desirable to construct a single, composite bus stop of suitable design to cater to all the bus routes collectively. (vi) In hilly areas, the bus bays shall be located, preferably, where the road is straight on both sides, gradients are flat and the visibility is reasonably good (usually not less than 50m). Subject to these requirements, it will be advisable to choose locations where it is possible to widen the roadway economically for accommodating bus bays. (vii) Where grade separator is provided, the location of bus bays shall be as under (a) Sufficiently away from the ground intersection. (b) Sufficiently away from the longitudinal slope of the approaches. (viii) The bus bay and passenger shelter shall be designed to provide for safe and convenient use by physically challenged persons as well. 36. Para 12.5.3 of IRC:SP:84-2009 deals with layout and design. As per clause (i) of Para 12.5.3, for plain area, typical layouts of bus bays given in Fig.12.1 shall be adopted. The length “L” shown in Fig.12.1 shall be 15m, which shall be increased in multiples of 15 m if more than one bus is likely to halt at the bus bay at one time. As per clause (ii), for hilly areas, where there is a general constraint on space, the layout indicated in Fig.12.2 may be adopted. As per clause (iii), the chanelizing island between the paved shoulder and bus-bay shall not be raised; it shall be paved. As per clause (iv), bus bays shall be provided on both carriageways of the Project Highway for each direction of travel independently. At intersections, the bus bays for up and down direction shall be located on farther sides of the intersection. As per clause (v), the bus bay shall be provided with a shelter for passengers. The shelter shall be structurally safe and aesthetic in appearance, while also being functional so as to protect the waiting passengers adequately from sun, wind and rain. If the shelter is constructed on the hillside, slopes shall be properly dressed and suitably protected to avoid slips. The shelter shall be set back from the kerb line by at least 500mm. Para 12.5.6 deals with road markings. If the shelter is constructed on the hillside, slopes shall be properly dressed and suitably protected to avoid slips. The shelter shall be set back from the kerb line by at least 500mm. Para 12.5.6 deals with road markings. As per Para 12.5.6, pavement markings as specified in Section 9 of this Manual shall be provided at the bus stops as shown in Figs.12.1 and 12.2 with the word ‘BUS’ written prominently on the pavement. Pedestrian crossings shall be marked slightly behind the standing position of the buses in order to reduce pedestrian conflicts. The kerbs shall be marked with continuous yellow line to indicate “No Parking”. 37. The Government of Kerala is implementing Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), a major initiative towards improvement of State Highway network, in two phases, with the assistance of the World Bank. The work relating to up-gradation of Kasargod - Kanhangad Road (km:0+000 to km:27+780), under KSTP Phase-II, has already been completed on 23.04.2015. As per the Executive Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for Kasargod - Kanhangad Road, Pilathara -Pappinisseri Road and Thalassery - Valavupara Road published by the Kerala Public Works Department in October 2012, Link-69 Kasargod - Kanhangad road starts at Kasargod (Chainage 0+000) and ends at Kanhangad South (Chainage 28+600), the total length of the stretch being 28.60 km. This link road is a section of State Highway-57 (SH-57), which runs parallel to National Highway-66 (NH-66), formerly NH-17, one of the major National Highway in Kerala. Link-69 passes through Uduma, Pallikkara, Chithari, Ajanoor and Hosdurg. 38. As per Para E.2 of Executive Summary of EIA and EMP, the general philosophy followed in formulating improvement proposals includes improvement of road safety features. The optimum level of improvements proposed includes widening of project roads, strengthening/reconstruction of the existing pavement for the entire length, provision for footpath cum built-up drain, junction improvements, provision for pedestrian crossing facilities, traffic signs, road furniture and bus shelters. The summary of improvement proposals for Link-69 Kasargod - Kanhangad road in Table 1 of Executive Summary of EIA and EMP reads thus; Table 1 Summary of Improvement Proposals Sl. No. Particulars Link-69 1. Starting Chainage km 0+000 (Kasargod) 2. Ending Chainage km 27+744 (Kanhangad) 3. Length 27.74 km 4. Classification State Highway (SH) 57 5. Proposed RoW Min - 13 m & Max – 20 m 6. No. Particulars Link-69 1. Starting Chainage km 0+000 (Kasargod) 2. Ending Chainage km 27+744 (Kanhangad) 3. Length 27.74 km 4. Classification State Highway (SH) 57 5. Proposed RoW Min - 13 m & Max – 20 m 6. Proposed Carriage Way width 10 m 7. Junction Improvements Major junctions - 4 Nos Minor junctions - 126 Nos 8. Pavement Composition Details Existing CW: Overlaid with 40 mm BC + PCC Widening : 40 BC + 75 DBM +250 WMN + 200 GSB 9. Drains (both sides) 22,194 m 10. Passenger Shelter 43 Nos 11. Crash Barrier 1,010 m 12. Pedestrian Guard Rail 4,912 m 13. Parking Spaces (Taxi, Auto, Jeep) Exiting: 19 Nos New: 12 Nos 14. Oxbow Land 4 Nos 15. Bridge/Culvert Total - 59 Nos Major Bridge - 3 Nos Minor Bridge - 3 Nos Viaduct - 1 No ROB - 2 Nos Culverts - 50 Nos 16. Noise Barrier At all educational buildings for a height of 2 to 3 m - Total length - 42 m 17. Protection measures Retaining Wall - 4,310 m (including both sides) Stone Pitching - 335 m Turfing Length - 16,350 m on LHS, 15,750 m on RHS 39. Para E.9 of the Executive Summary of EIA and EMP deals with Environmental Enhancement, which reads thus; “Several measures have been proposed for enhancing the environment and social aspects. These measures include planting of trees and shrubs beyond that is required according to the law, construction of retaining walls and guardrails, bus bays, parking areas, bus shelters with kiosk, cultural property enhancement, landscaping of oxbow lands, providing sign boards, preserving and landscaping cultural properties, etc. The link specific Mangrove Afforestation Plan, which aims to enhance coastal environment, is one of the major enhancement measure proposed as part of this project. It includes planting of mangroves, construction of retaining walls and guardrails.” 40. Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inserted by Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 01.09.2019, vide S.O. 3147(E) dated 30.08.2019, deals with failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance. It includes planting of mangroves, construction of retaining walls and guardrails.” 40. Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inserted by Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 01.09.2019, vide S.O. 3147(E) dated 30.08.2019, deals with failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance. As per sub-section (1) of section 198A, any designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible for the design or construction or maintenance of the safety standards of the road shall follow such design, construction and maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. As per sub-section (2), where failure on the part of the designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible under sub-section (1) to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance, results in death or disability, such authority or contractor or concessionaire shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs.1,00,000/- and the same shall be paid to the Fund constituted under Section 164B. 41. As per sub-section (3) of Section 198A, for the purposes of sub-section (2), the court shall in particular have regard to the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (g), namely, (a) the characteristics of the road, and the nature and type of traffic which was reasonably expected to use it as per the design of road; (b) the standard of maintenance norms applicable for a road of that character and use by such traffic; (c) the state of repair in which road users would have expected to find the road; (d) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the road to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to the road users; (e) whether the designated authority responsible for the maintenance of the road could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the road before the cause of action arose; (f) whether adequate warning notices through road signs, of its condition had been displayed; and (g) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Central Government. As per Explanation, for the purposes of Section 198A, the term 'contractor' shall include sub-contractors and all such persons who are responsible for any stage in the design, construction and maintenance of a stretch of road. 42. The Indian Roads Congress has also formulated Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities, vide IRC:103-2012. In Chapter 1 of IRC:103-2012 'footpath' is defined as a portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrian. Chapter 2 of IRC:103-2012 deals with introduction. As per Para 2.3, all pedestrian facilities ensure social equity. Developing a pedestrian environment means more than laying down a footpath or installing a signal. A truly viable pedestrian system takes into account both the big pictures and smallest details -from how a city is formed and built to what materials are under our feet. Chapter 3 of IRC:103-2012 deals with its scope. As per Para 3.2, the guidelines cover engineering design and planning aspects of pedestrian facilities on roadside and at road crossing in urban and semi-urban areas. As per Para 3.3, the guidelines are intended for use by the local authorities responsible for creating and maintaining semi-urban and urban road transport facilities. The guidelines are framed to serve the objectives of universal accessibility and social equity for sustainable transportation. As per Para 4.2, efforts should be made to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forced to walk in unsafe circumstances and that the motorists respect the position of pedestrians. As per Para 4.5, the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility should be ensured to promote inclusive mobility and universal accessibility. As per Para 4.6, regular maintenance of all facilities and design elements should be undertaken to maintain accessibility, reliability, usability, safety and continuity. As per para 4.7, while planning and designing pedestrian facilities, overall objectivity could be continuity and overall safety. 43. Chapter 5 of IRC:103-2012 deals with pedestrian level of service. As per Para 5.1, pedestrian spaces should be designed in consideration of human convenience and have to be qualitatively suitable to the needs of human beings. 9 parameters affect the quality of service of a footpath, out of which, 6 are pertaining to physical characteristics of footpath facility, like footpath width, footpath surface, obstruction, encroachment, potential of vehicular conflict and continuity. The 3 user factors are pedestrian volume, security, comfort and walking environment. 9 parameters affect the quality of service of a footpath, out of which, 6 are pertaining to physical characteristics of footpath facility, like footpath width, footpath surface, obstruction, encroachment, potential of vehicular conflict and continuity. The 3 user factors are pedestrian volume, security, comfort and walking environment. Para 5.2 of IRC:103-2012 deals with concept of pedestrian level of service; para 5.3 deals with physical characteristics; and para 5.4 deals with user characteristics. Para 6 of IRC:103-2012 deals with pedestrian facility design standards. 44. In Shali v. State of Kerala [ 2019 (4) KLT 484 ], this Court held that, as per para 4.2 of the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities [IRC:103-2012], an effort should be made to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forced to walk in unsafe circumstances, and that the motorists respect the position of pedestrian. The Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities have the approval of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). Every local authority in the State is bound to provide pedestrian facilities on public roads in conformity with these guidelines. 45. In Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC SN 27] this Court held that, in view of the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by the Indian Roads Congress, vide IRC:103-2012, no parking of vehicles is legally permissible on the 'footpath', which is the portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrians. Any such parking of vehicles on the footpath of public streets will force pedestrians to walk in unsafe circumstances, which will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 46. In exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, the Central Government made the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Clause (b) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'carriageway' to mean the part or parts of a road normally used by vehicular traffic, whether separate from one another by a dividing strip or a difference of level or not. Clause (b) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'carriageway' to mean the part or parts of a road normally used by vehicular traffic, whether separate from one another by a dividing strip or a difference of level or not. Clause (j) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'parking' to mean the bringing of a vehicle to a stationary position and causing it to wait for any purpose other than that of immediately taking up or setting down persons, goods or luggage and includes stopping for more than three minutes. Clause (o) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'road user', which includes a person driving or traveling on the road in a vehicle or otherwise and a pedestrian. Clause (r) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'stopping' to mean halting a vehicle for a very short duration out of free will, either to allow the passenger to board or alight or quick loading or unloading of goods. 47. Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per clause (4) of Regulation 5, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. As per clause (5) of Regulation 5, the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. 48. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per sub-clause (iv) of clause (1) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be stopped on, or five meters before a pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a main road or at a stretch of road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a main road or at a stretch of road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. As per sub-clause (c), a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing; as per sub-clause (d), before or after an intercession or a junction upto a distance of 50 meters from the edge of intercession or junction; as per sub-clause (e), where it would block access to designated parking places; as per sub-clause (i), in front of the entrance or exit of a property; and as per sub-clause (m), if it is likely to obstruct other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person. 49. Regulation 39 deals with pedestrian crossing, footpath and cycle track. As per clause (1) of Regulation 39, while approaching an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, the driver shall slow down, stop and give way to pedestrian, users of invalid carriages and wheelchairs. As per clause (2), if the traffic has come to a standstill, the driver shall not drive the vehicle on the pedestrian crossing, if he is unlikely to be able to move further and thereby block the pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (3), when a road is provided with a footpath or cycle track, no vehicle shall drive on such footpath or track, except on the directions of a Police Officer in uniform or where traffic signs permitting some movements have been displayed. 50. The Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a public-spirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, constituted a 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014 - S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [ (2014) 6 SCC 36 ], and the said Committee was notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said decision, after referring to the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with licensing; vehicular fitness; etc. the Apex Court observed that, while improvements in different spheres of law are imminent with passage of time, any change of law has to be preceded by serious debate and consideration of a wide variety of factors all of which takes time. the Apex Court observed that, while improvements in different spheres of law are imminent with passage of time, any change of law has to be preceded by serious debate and consideration of a wide variety of factors all of which takes time. While such changes or amendments can be brought in only upon completion of the necessary exercise, the enforcement of the existing laws would stand on an entirely different footing. Strict and faithful enforcement of all existing laws and norms must be insisted upon not only as an absolute principle of law but also for the huge beneficial effects thereof. Though directions to the States to enforce the existing laws can be issued even in their absence, the Apex Court observed that the matter cannot be allowed to rest merely by issuance of directions. Observance and implementation of the directions to be issued by Court in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would require continuing scrutiny and therefore, the Apex Court decided to monitor such implementation and to make the States accountable for any inaction or lapse in this regard. The Apex court impleaded all the States as party respondents and directed the Government of each State to effectively implement and enforce all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of which the States have the authority and obligation to so act under the Constitution, in addition to the tasks specifically alluded to in the subsequent paragraphs of that order dated 22.04.2014. By the said order, the Apex Court constituted a Committee having the composition, as enumerated in paragraphs 35, and the functions, as enumerated in paragraphs 36.4 to 36.8, to undertake the process of monitoring on behalf of the Court, the measures undertaken by the Central Government and the State Governments and the extent of affirmative action on part of the Union and the States, from time to time. 51. In W.P.(C) No.295 of 2012, the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 - S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. 51. In W.P.(C) No.295 of 2012, the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 - S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. In paragraph 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of Lane Driving, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634(E) dated 23.06.2017, which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision contains various directions issued by the Apex Court. In paragraph 95, the Apex court has made it clear that, if there is any doubt or clarity is required in implementing those directions, the State Government or Union Territory concerned is at liberty to move the Committee on Road Safety. 52. In Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC SN 27] this Court held that, as per clause (5) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver of a vehicle has to ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (i) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked in front of the entrance or exit of the property. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (c) of clause (2), no vehicle shall be parked on the footpath. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked on a main road or at a stretch of a road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked on a main road or at a stretch of a road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. The three Apex Committees in the Indian Roads Congress, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, standards and Guidelines. The Indian Roads Congress has formulated the Manual of Specifications and Standards for the construction of the National Highways and once the National Highways are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. 53. As per the Model Concession Agreement for State Highways published by the Planning Commission for State Highways, the accountability for providing safe and reliable roads ultimately rests with the Government. The Model Concession Agreement, therefore, mandates a Manual of Standards and Specifications that the Concessionaire must conform to, which would, by reference, form an integral part of the Model Concession Agreement and would be binding on the Concessionaire. In order to ensure uniformity of approach and to facilitate easy implementation by various State Governments, the Planning Commission asked the Indian Roads Congress to develop a Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-lane/Four-lane Highways. 54. The Indian Roads Congress has formulated Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, vide IRC:SP:73-2007; and Manual of Specifications and Standards for Four-laning of Highways through Public Private Partnership, vide IRC:SP:84-2009. As per the Manual of Specifications and Standards, the Project Highway and the project facilities shall conform to the design requirements set out in the Manual which are the minimum prescribed. Para 13.5 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with bus bays and bus shelters. As per Para 13.5.1, the buses shall be allowed to stop for dropping and picking up passengers only at the bus bays. Para 13.5.3 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with layout and design. 55. The Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP) is a major initiative of the State Government towards improvement of State Highway network, with the assistance of the World Bank. As per Para 13.5.1, the buses shall be allowed to stop for dropping and picking up passengers only at the bus bays. Para 13.5.3 of IRC:SP:73-2007 deals with layout and design. 55. The Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP) is a major initiative of the State Government towards improvement of State Highway network, with the assistance of the World Bank. The work relating to up-gradation of Link-69 Kasargod - Kanhangad Road (km:0+000 to km:27+780), which is a section of State Highway-57 has already been completed on 23.04.2015, which passes through Uduma, Pallikkara, Chithari, Ajanoor and Hosdurg. As per Para E.2 of the Executive Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) published by the Kerala Public Works Department in October 2012, the improvements proposed includes widening of project roads, strengthening/reconstruction of the existing pavement for the entire length, provision for footpath cum built-up drain, junction improvements, provision for pedestrian crossing facilities, traffic signs, road furniture and bus shelters. The summary of improvement proposals in Table 1 of Executive Summary of EIA and EMP for Link-69 Kasargod - Kanhangad road includes 43 passenger shelters, 12 new parking spaces for taxi, auto and jeep. Para.E.9 of Executive Summary, the proposed environmental enhancement measures include construction of retaining walls and guardrails, bus bays, parking areas, bus shelters with kiosk, etc. 56. Relying on Annexure 3 minutes of the District Road Safety Council, Kasaragode dated 22.12.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction falls out side the four-lane road, it needs to be demolished only in case of further expansion of KSTP Road as a six-lane road. The disputed bus shelter, which has been in existence even prior to the improvement of the road as a four-lane road, could have been excluded while constructing the bus bay. Even after the construction of two new bus shelters by KSTP, the people of the locality prefer to use the disputed bus shelter. 57. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, which is reproduced hereinbefore at Para 11 Page 8, the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. 57. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, which is reproduced hereinbefore at Para 11 Page 8, the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. The two new bus shelters constructed by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, are at a distance of only 30m from the disputed bus shelter. As per sub-section (1) of section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, any designated authority, contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible for the design or construction or maintenance of the safety standards of the road shall follow such design, construction and maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. 58. As evident from the photograph reproduced hereinbefore at Para 13, Page 10, the disputed bus shelter opposite to the railway gate at Uduma Junction poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians, including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. The 'hip-roof' of the bus shelter, which slops downwards, is only a few feet away from the edge of the carriageway of the four-lane KSTP Road, which is marked with white line. A stage carriage is seen stopped inside the carriageway, in front of the bus shelter, allowing the passengers to board and alight near the edge of the carriageway. Passengers are seen standing near the edge of the carriageway in front of the bus shelter, in order to board stage carriages. 59. As stated in Annexure I communication dated 08.01.2019 of the Executive Engineer, due to the presence of a railway crossing in the approach road at 8+850km, tailgating of vehicles from the level crossing extends to the project road during periodic closure of the railway gate during busy hours. Hence, in order to ease traffic flow, KSTP took up and completed four-laning of the project road at Uduma Junction with a central median. Hence, in order to ease traffic flow, KSTP took up and completed four-laning of the project road at Uduma Junction with a central median. By the order dated 07.01.2020, this Court directed a competent officer of the 1st respondent State to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which the bus shelter in question at Uduma Junction, which protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m, was not demolished after the construction of two new bus shelters by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, at a distance of only 30m from the said bus shelter. No such affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent State. 60. The Indian Roads Congress has formulated Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities, vide IRC:103-2012. As per Para 4.2 of IRC:103-2012, efforts should be made to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forced to walk in unsafe circumstances and that the motorists respect the position of pedestrians. As per Para 4.5, the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility should be ensured to promote inclusive mobility and universal accessibility. As per Para 4.6, regular maintenance of all facilities and design elements should be undertaken to maintain accessibility, reliability, usability, safety and continuity. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee [2019 (5) KHC SN 27], once the National Highways/State Highways are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. 61. In C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State [AIR 1953 Madras 279] a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that all public streets and roads vest in the State, but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public. The members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right and this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways. The members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right and this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways. The State as trustees on behalf of the public is entitled to impose all such limitations on the character and extent of the user as may be requisite for protecting the rights of the public generally. The State might even prohibit the running of transport buses and lorries on particular streets or roads, if such running would interfere with the rights of pedestrians to pass and re-pass, as it might if the street is narrow or congested, but subject to such limitations the right of a citizen to carry on business in transport vehicles on public pathways cannot be denied to him on the ground that the State owns the highways. Paragraph 24 of the said decision reads thus; “24. The true position, then is, that all public streets and roads vest in the State, but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public. The members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right and this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways. The State as trustees on behalf of the public is entitled to impose all such limitations on the character and extent of the user as may be requisite for protecting the rights of the public generally. Thus the nature of the road may be such that it may not be suitable for heavy traffic and it will be within the competence of the Legislature to limit the use of the streets to vehicles which do not exceed specified size or weight. Such regulations have been held to be valid as within the police power of the State in America. Vide Morris v. Duby [(1927) 71 Law Ed. 966], Sproles v. Binford [(1932) 76 Law Ed.1167], and South Carolina State v. Barnwell Bros. [(1938) 82 Law Ed. 734]. Such regulations have been held to be valid as within the police power of the State in America. Vide Morris v. Duby [(1927) 71 Law Ed. 966], Sproles v. Binford [(1932) 76 Law Ed.1167], and South Carolina State v. Barnwell Bros. [(1938) 82 Law Ed. 734]. For the same reason the State might even prohibit the running of transport buses and lorries on particular streets or roads, if such running would interfere with the rights of pedestrians to pass and re-pass, as it might if the street is narrow or congested, but subject to such limitations the right of a citizen to carry on business in transport vehicles on public pathways cannot be denied to him on the ground that the State owns the highways.” 62. In Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others [ AIR 1954 SC 728 ] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court agreed with the statement of law made by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Para 24 of the decision in C.S.S. Motor Service. 63. In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [ 1989 (4) SCC 155 ] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that the primary object of building roads is undoubtedly to facilitate people to travel from one point to another. P. Duraiswami Aiyangar in his book dealing with the Law of Municipal Corporations in British India (1914 Edn.) has observed that the primary and paramount use of the street is public travel for man, beast and carriage for goods. Public have a right of passing and re-passing through a street, but have no right 'to be on it', which Sri Aiyangar has mentioned at page 542 of his book. Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol.21 Para 107) it has been stated that the right of the public is a right to pass along a highway for the purpose of legitimate travel, not to be on it, except so far as the public's presence is attributable to a reasonable and proper user of the highway as such. What is required of him is that he should not create an unreasonable obstruction which may inconvenience other persons having similar right to pass; he should not make excessive use of the road to the prejudice of the others. Liberty of an individual comes to an end where the liberty of another commences. What is required of him is that he should not create an unreasonable obstruction which may inconvenience other persons having similar right to pass; he should not make excessive use of the road to the prejudice of the others. Liberty of an individual comes to an end where the liberty of another commences. Subject to this, a member of the public is entitled to legitimate user of the road other than actually passing or repassing through it. 64. In Sodan Singh the Apex Court held further that the proposition that 'since a person is entitled to the user of every part of a public street, he cannot be deprived of the use of any portion thereof by putting up of any obstruction', in its extreme form cannot be accepted without subjecting it to several restrictions. A similar argument was pressed before the Madras High Court in H.A. Pal Mohd. v. R.K. Sadarangani [AIR 1985 Madras 23] based on the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, and was rightly repelled by pointing out that since the pavement is also included within the expression 'street', a member of the public relying upon the aforesaid proposition can not insist on his right to walk over a flower bed or structure erected by the public authorities for regulating traffic, which will be wholly unpractical. The authorities are duty bound to locate post boxes, fire hydrants with water tanks, milk booths, bus or jutka stands, rubbish bins etc., in appropriate places in a public street and it would be preposterous to hold that this cannot be done as somebody may insist on keeping every inch of the street available for actual passage. Winfield and Jolowicz in their book on Tort (12th Edn.) have said that nuisance may be defined, with reference to highways, as any wrongful act or omission upon or near a highway, whereby the public are prevented from freely, safely, and conveniently passing along the highway and that the law requires of users of the highway a certain amount of 'give and take'. In Harper v. G.N. Naden and Sons Ltd. [(1933) 1 Ch. 298] it was held that the law relating to the user of highways is in truth the law of give and take. In Harper v. G.N. Naden and Sons Ltd. [(1933) 1 Ch. 298] it was held that the law relating to the user of highways is in truth the law of give and take. Those who use them must in doing so have reasonable regard to the convenience and comfort of others, and must not themselves expect a degree of convenience and comfort only obtainable by disregarding that of other people. They must expect to be obstructed occasionally. It is the price they pay for the privilege of obstructing others. 65. In Sodan Singh the Apex Court held further that, as to what will constitute public nuisance and what can be included in the legitimate user can be ascertained only by taking into account all the relevant circumstances including the size of the road, the amount of traffic and the nature of the additional use one wants to make of the public streets. This has to be judged objectively and here comes the role of public authorities. In Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [ (1985) 3 SCC 528 ] it was held that public streets by their nomenclature and definition are meant for the use of the general public. They are not laid to facilitate the carrying on of private business. If hawkers were to be conceded the right claimed by them, they could hold the society to ransom by squatting on the busy thoroughfares, thereby paralysing all civic life. The right to carry on trade or business mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, on street pavements, if properly regulated cannot be denied on the ground that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no other use. Proper regulation is, however, a necessary condition as otherwise the very object of laying out roads - to facilitate traffic - may be defeated. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in Sodan Singh held that the principle stated in Saghir Ahmad [ AIR 1954 SC 728 ] in connection with transport business applies to the hawkers' case also. The right is subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in Sodan Singh held that the principle stated in Saghir Ahmad [ AIR 1954 SC 728 ] in connection with transport business applies to the hawkers' case also. The proposition that all public streets and roads in India vest in the State but that the State holds them as trustee on behalf of the public, and the members of the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of right, and that this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed by every other citizen to use the pathways, and further that the State as trustee is entitled to impose all necessary limitations on the character and extent of the user, should be treated as of universal application. 66. In Sodan Singh the Apex Court held further that the right to carry on any trade or business and the concept of life and personal liberty within Article 21 of the Constitution of India are too remote to be connected together. The petitioners in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [ (1985) 3 SCC 545 ] were very poor persons who had made pavements their homes existing in the midst of filth and squalor. It was not a case of a business of selling articles after investing some capital, howsoever meagre. The judgment in Bombay Hawkers Union [ (1985) 3 SCC 528 ] and that in Olga Tellis were delivered within a week, both by Y.B. Chandrachud, C.J. and while dealing with the rights of the squatting hawkers in the former case the learned Chief Justice confined the consideration of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Besides, in Olga Tellis the validity of Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was affirmed on the ground that removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. Footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. Footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. The main reason for laving out pavements is to ensure that the pedestrians are able to go about their daily affairs with reasonable measure of safety and security. That facility, which has matured into a right of the pedestrians, cannot be set at naught by allowing encroachments to be made on the pavements. There is no substance in the argument that the claim of the pavement dwellers to put up constructions on pavements and that of the pedestrians to make use of the pavements for passing, re-passing, are competing claims and that, the former should be preferred to the latter. No one has the right to make use of a public property for a private purpose without the requisite authorisation and therefore, it is erroneous to contend that the pavement dwellers have the right to encroach upon pavements by constructing dwellings thereon. Public streets, of which pavements form a part, are primarily dedicated for the purpose of passage and, even the pedestrians have but the limited right of using pavements for the purpose of passing and re-passing. So long as a person does not transgress the limited purpose for which the pavements are made, his use thereof is legitimate and lawful. But, if a person puts any public property to a use for which it is not intended and is not authorised to use it, he becomes a trespasser. The common example which is cited in some of the English cases, for example, Hickman v. Maisey [(1900) 1 QB 752] is that if a person, while using a highway for passage, sits down for a time to rest himself by the side of the road, he does not commit a trespass. But, if a person puts up a dwelling on the pavement, whatever may be the economic compulsions behind such an act, his user of the pavement would become unauthorised. 67. But, if a person puts up a dwelling on the pavement, whatever may be the economic compulsions behind such an act, his user of the pavement would become unauthorised. 67. In Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur [ (2009) 15 SCC 351 ], in the matter of erection of arches on the side of two Major District Roads, namely, Thuraiyur-Perambalur Road and Thuraimangalam-Bungalow Road, which are declared to be highways under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the Apex Court held that the State, being the principal protector of the rights of its citizens, keeping in view the doctrine of public trust as adumbrated in a large number of decisions, including M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [ (1997) 1 SCC 388 ], M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [ (1999) 6 SCC 464 ] and Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. [ (2006) 3 SCC 549 ] should not have granted such permission. 68. In P.N. Srinivasan (Deceased) and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [ 2014 (1) CTC 561 : AIR 2015 NOC 80] a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, after following the judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Farook [ (2009) 15 SCC 351 ], held that the Constitution of India guarantees right to move throughout the territory of India. This right under Article 19(1)(d) cannot be construed in a very narrow manner. It would cover all incidental rights which would make this constitutional right meaningful. Nobody has got a right to claim erection of permanent structures like statues on roads. The State is not an exception. The Government is for the people. Therefore, any policy adopted by the Government must be for public good. The Government symbolises the will and wishes of people. The policy must reflect such social aspirations of the people. The Government have no special right to erect a statue on a public road. The regulations regarding prohibition of permanent structure like statues on roads would equally apply to the State. 69. In P.N. Srinivasan the Division Bench held further that the decision to honour public personalities, artists of repute, etc., must not be at the cost of public convenience. The public roads are nothing but public property. The roads are formed by acquiring land. The citizen is deprived of his land by the process of acquisition. 69. In P.N. Srinivasan the Division Bench held further that the decision to honour public personalities, artists of repute, etc., must not be at the cost of public convenience. The public roads are nothing but public property. The roads are formed by acquiring land. The citizen is deprived of his land by the process of acquisition. The acquisition is justified in larger public interest. The roads constructed after such acquisition are for public purpose. It is only for the welfare and betterment of public all such developmental activities are undertaken. The people should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such development. The National Highways and State Highways constructed by acquiring private property and by using public funds, can be used only for the travelling needs of public. It cannot be converted for other collateral purposes like erection of statues and memorials. The roads and streets are meant for pedestrians and motorists. It is not meant for erection of statues. There is no dispute that the leaders and stalwarts should be respected in an appropriate manner. By erecting statues on the middle of public road, by giving difficulties to the motorists and general public, actually we are showing disrespect to such distinguishing personalities. The memorials should be erected only at unobjectionable places and in any case not on the middle of roads. The names of celebrated artists should not be dragged into the midst of litigation by the State by erecting his statue on the middle of road, to the dislike of motorists and pedestrians. 70. In the instant case, as stated in Annexure I communication dated 08.01.2019 of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, KSTP, Kannur, Uduma township extends from Ch.8+700 to 9+000km along the route of KSTP Road. Due to the presence of a railway crossing in the approach road at 8+850km, tailgating of vehicles from the level crossing extends to the project road during periodic closure of the railway gate during busy hours. Hence, in order to ease traffic flow, KSTP took up and completed four-laning of the project road at Uduma Junction with a central median. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, though the disputed bus shelter is outside the carriageway of the road, it protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, though the disputed bus shelter is outside the carriageway of the road, it protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. The disputed bus shelter causes hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. Two new bus shelters constructed by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, are at a distance of only 30m from the disputed bus shelter. In the order dated 07.01.2020, this Court noticed that the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians, including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 71. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the primary object of building roads is to facilitate people to travel from one point to another and carriage of goods. The right of the public is a right to pass along a highway for the purpose of legitimate travel, not to be on it, except so far as the public's presence is attributable to a reasonable and proper user of the highway as such. He should not create an unreasonable obstruction which may inconvenience other persons having similar right to pass; he should not make excessive use of the road to the prejudice of the others. The authorities are duty bound to locate post boxes, fire hydrants with water tanks, milk booths, bus or jutka stands, rubbish bins etc., in appropriate places in a public street. 72. Footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets. The main reason for laying out pavements is to ensure that the pedestrians are able to go about their daily affairs with reasonable measure of safety and security. That facility, which has matured into a right of the pedestrians, cannot be set at naught by allowing encroachments to be made on the pavements. Removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. That facility, which has matured into a right of the pedestrians, cannot be set at naught by allowing encroachments to be made on the pavements. Removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. The State, being the principal protector of the rights of its citizens, keeping in view the doctrine of public trust, should not permit any encroachments on the footpaths or pavements. Nobody has got a right to erect any structures on roads. The State is not an exception. The National Highways and State Highways constructed by acquiring private property and by using public funds, can be used only for the travelling needs of public. It cannot be converted for other collateral purposes like erection of statues and memorials. 73. In the instant case, as evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, which is reproduced hereinbefore at Para 11, Page 8, the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m. The said fact is evident from Ext.P1 photographs and also Ext.P2 approved plan of KSTP Road at Uduma Junction, produced along with the writ petition. The bus bay at Uduma Junction is one constructed by KSTP as per the specifications and standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress in the Manual of Specifications and Standards, since, due to the presence of a railway crossing in the approach road at Uduma Junction (at 8+850km), tailgating of vehicles from the level crossing extends to the project road during periodic closure of the railway gate during busy hours. KSTP has also constructed two new bus shelters on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, are at a distance of only 30m from the disputed bus shelter. 74. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in case the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction is required to be removed, the party concerned has to be issued with notice. 75. 74. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in case the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction is required to be removed, the party concerned has to be issued with notice. 75. From the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, the disputed bus shelter is one constructed in road puramboke, prior to the improvement of KSTP road at Uduma Junction as a four-lane road with bus bay. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, which is reproduced hereinbefore at Para 11, Page 8, the disputed bus shelter falls within the boundaries of State Highway-57. It protrudes into the bus bay constructed by KSTP, as per the specifications and standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress. That bus bay was constructed since tailgating of vehicles from the level crossing at Uduma Junction (at 8+850km) extends to the project road during periodic closure of the railway gate during busy hours. As evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch, KSTP has constructed two new bus shelters on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, as per the specifications and standards prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress. 76. In the counter affidavit filed on 31.10.2019, the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, KSTP has admitted that the disputed bus shelter causes hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, KSTP Division, Kannur in Annexure I communication dated 08.01.2019 addressed to the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer, has stated that, the disputed bus shelter falls outside the four-lane limit. In Annexure I communication addressed to the 3rd respondent, furnishing statement of facts in W.P.(C) No.38888 of 2018, the Executive Engineer, for reasons best known to him, has suppressed the fact that the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m, which causes hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. As evident from Annexure 3 minutes of the District Road Safety Council dated 22.12.2018, just before Annexure A1 communication dated 08.01.2019, the officials of KSTP reported before the Road Safety Council that the disputed bus shelter at Uduma Junction falls outside the four-lane road, suppressing the fact that the said bus shelter, which protrudes into the bus bay, is causing hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay. 77. Despite the order of this Court dated 07.01.2020, the competent officer of the 1st respondent State has not chosen to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances in which the bus shelter in question at Uduma Junction, which protrudes into the bus bay having a width of 3m, to the extent of 1.5m, was not demolished after the construction of two new bus shelters by KSTP on the road margin, without protruding into the tarred portion of the road earmarked as bus bay, at a distance of only 30m from the said bus shelter. As already noticed, as per Ext.R3(a) sketch, after the improvement of KSTP road at Uduma junction as a four-lane road with bus bay, the disputed bus shelter constructed in road puramboke falls within the boundaries of State Highway-57. For demolition of that bus shelter, which protrudes into the bus bay, causing hindrance to the buses which enter the bus bay, no notice need be issued to the political party or the political organisation which had constructed that bus shelter. 78. State highways constructed using public funds cater the travelling needs of the public and also carriage of goods. Bus bays and also bus shelters on highway margin are for the convenience of the public. The location, layout and design of bus bays and bus shelters shall meet the requirements set out in the Manual of Specifications and Standards for Two-laning/Four-laning of Highways formulated by the Indian Roads Congress, in order to ensure the safety of pedestrians and passengers on State Highways. The State, which holds public streets and pavements as trustee on behalf of the public, cannot permit any political party or organisation to erect bus shelters or any other structures, arches, etc. on public streets and pavements. Pavements are for pedestrians. No political party or organisation has got a right to erect structures, arches, etc. on public streets and pavements. 79. on public streets and pavements. Pavements are for pedestrians. No political party or organisation has got a right to erect structures, arches, etc. on public streets and pavements. 79. In the instant case, as evident from Ext.P1 photographs and also Ext.P2 approved plan of KSTP Road at Uduma Junction, produced along with the writ petition, the disputed bus shelter protrudes into the tarred portion of KSTP Road earmarked as bus bay. The said fact is also evident from Ext.R3(a) sketch produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer. The said bus shelter, which poses serious safety concerns to bus passengers and also to pedestrians, including those with disabilities and reduced mobility, has to be removed, as directed in the judgment sought to be reviewed. 80. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hedge v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [ AIR 1960 SC 137 ] the Apex Court observed that, an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 81. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [ AIR 1964 SC 1372 ] the Apex Court held that, review is, by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. 82. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1980) 2 SCC 167 ] the Apex Court held that, if the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view, having regard to what the record states; it is difficult to hold that there is error apparent on the face of the record. 83. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [ (1995) 1 SCC 170 ] the Apex Court held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 83. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [ (1995) 1 SCC 170 ] the Apex Court held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [ AIR 1979 SC 1047 ], while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court observed that, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of Plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. 84. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [ (1997) 8 SCC 715 ] the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 held that, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 85. Later, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India [ (2006) 3 SCC 224 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 86. In Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/ judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 87. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code is very limited and unless there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment does not call for review. Further, whilst exercising such power of review, the Court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code and that the limits within which the Courts can exercise the power of review have been well settled in a catena of decisions. 88. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in this review petition fall within the ambit and scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. 89. In the result, this review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 88. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in this review petition fall within the ambit and scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. 89. In the result, this review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Registry shall incorporate a copy of this order in the Judge's Papers of Cont.Case (C) No.2007 of 2019. No order as to costs.